Order | Filed: July 21, 2026
| Entered: July 21, 2026
Musgrave v. Herring Networks, Inc. et al
Assault Libel & Slander | South Carolina
Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim
TEXT ORDER finding as moot 12 Motion to Dismiss, 13 Motion to Dismiss, and 27 First Motion to Dismiss in light of Plaintiff's 29 Amended Complaint. An amended pleading supersedes the original pleading. Young v. City of Mount Ranier, 238 F.3d 567, 573 (4th Cir. 2001) ("As a general rule, 'an amended pleading ordinarily supersedes the original and renders it of no legal effect.' " (quoting Crysen/Montenay Energy Co. v. Shell Oil Co. (In re Crysen/Montenay Energy Co.), 226 F.3d 160, 162 (2d Cir. 2000))); see also 6 <i<>Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 1476 (3d ed. 2011) ("A pleading that has been amended... supersedes the pleading it modifies.... Once an amended pleading is interposed, the original pleading no longer performs any function in the case...."). As a result, motions directed at the superseded pleading generally are to be denied as moot. See, e.g., Hall v. Int'l Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers of Am., UAW, No. 3:10-cv-418-RJC-DSC, 2011 WL 4014315, at *1 (W.D.N.C. June 21, 2011) (denying as moot the defendants' motions to dismiss because the second amended complaint rendered moot the defendants' pending motions to dismiss, which were related to the superseded complaint); McCoy v. City of Columbia, No. 3:10-132-JFA-JRM, 2010 WL 3447476, at *1-2 (D.S.C. Aug. 31, 2010) (adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation to the extent it recommended that the motion to dismiss be found as moot because the amended complaint superseded the original complaint and rendered any attack upon it moot); Rowley v. City of N. Myrtle Beach, Nos. 4:06-1873-TLW-TER, 4:07-1636-TLW-TER, 2009 WL 750406, at *2-3 (D.S.C. Mar. 16, 2009) (finding as moot the defendants' motion to file answer out of time and the plaintiff's motion for default judgment based on the defendants' failure to timely answer the original complaint because "[t]he original complaint was, in a sense, amended out of existence" (quoting Thomas v. Se. Pa. Transp. Auth., 1989 WL 11222, at *1 (E.D. Pa. 1989))). Signed by Honorable Jacquelyn D Austin on 7/21/2026.(alma, )